Hate to disagree, but, yes, a true conservative WOULD want change, not simply for the sake of change. While the above posters are changing the world, the reality is that it is difficult enough to get media coverage, public input on something as banal as Senate Reform.<br />
<br />
Elections are quite cheap to run, much of it by private donations. Elections would open up the Senate so that far more changes would be enacted. Currently, you can't even find out how much the Senate spends on salaries, committees, expenses, etc. So, much to the chagrin of our posting friend, I'd take the expense of elections over nominations anyday. As said, why not get rid of ALL government positions so that you pay NO money. In fact, get rid of police, military, all departments, education, health, etc.<br />
<br />
If that's the aim, good luck to you, but we live in a place called reality. Stockwell Day took a beating just for positing the use of citizens initiatives (and people really thought it was because of water skiing!) <br />
<br />
Personally I'd take the New Hampshire system over ours anyday, not the whole thing mind you. There are big problems in the states, I'd opt instead for their neighbour in Vermont. Its a complete fiction that New Hampshire is 'low government'. Vermonts government only costs $400 more per taxpayer and they get a lot more bang. New Hampshire, despite 'claiming' to be so libertarian actually gets far more of its state funding from the feds (probably because they have a knack for supporting Presidential winners). They get something like $500 more per person from federal and outside sources. <br />
<br />
Vermont also has a far lower debt, showing they're far more conservative in their borrowing. As far as democracy is concerned, I'd travel north to Maine, where the state also has implemented citizens initiatives. Neither New Hampshire nor Vermont has this at the state level, both have it at the local level. New Hampshire has less centralization and this is creating big problems, such as the current fight to figure out how to pay for education. The local governments aren't allowed to tax for it, but its not in the State's jurisdiction either. <br />
<br />
Vermont and Maine are a little more statist, which is a FAR easier sell in Canada. But personally, I've found just mentioning any aspects of the US government to a good proportion of Canadians gets an absolute refusal to even discuss it. Ironically most people's opinion stems from FEDERAL US policies, which aren't any more democratic than Canada's.<br />
<br />
In New Hampshire the problems of democracy have become abundantly clear with southeastern NH becoming a suburb of Boston. People have moved in, and voted to change the referenda legislation to where only a 50% plus one majority is needed, rather than the two thirds previously used. Due to voting patterns, more of these wealthy urbanites show up to vote, and so increasing legislation has favoured tax increases for services (mostly to wealthy suburbanites) and pushed out poorer Hampshirians. <br />
<br />
This is creating what is abundantly clear in most Canadian provinces, a rich-poor duality. The only way around that (in Canada) is to completely break down ownership of natural resources to the local area. That would be sort of like the 'canton' model in Switzerland.<br />
<br />
However, that's not practical, certainly not any time soon. Anybody that thinks big changes are going to come from government legislation needs to go back and read some newspapers from 1867 where the same complaints were made.<br />
<br />
For action, that will come, eventually, from US. Hopefully it won't be when things get so bad people are rioting in the streets. But if you are a teacher and looking closely at the next generation, you can see why Harper wants more people in the military, and more cops around. <br />
<br />
Again, just go to <a href="http://www.scottreid.com">www.scottreid.com</a>. That's an easy answer to democracy. You simply elect a guy who will have referenda on any issue (his are restricted, but that can change). It doesn't matter which party their from, tell your friends and start emailing your MP, or the guy who will be running against them. Conservatives are more likely to favour it, just because they have in the past, and because Scott Reid is an example. Yet anybody can have referenda, even liberals. In fact I suspect politicians would love canadians to help pry open the 'party politics' and 'heavy lobbying' that constricts them. <br />
<br />
It's perfect for backbenchers, who almost never get national media play.<br />
<br />
So for strategy, check out direct democracy, start it locally, or provincially-most federal initiatives start in the provinces. Write letters to the editor of the national papers, join fairvote and other groups. Can't find anyone locally, do like I'm doing and run yourself. <br />
<br />
The US provides one very good example-it takes WORK from PEOPLE to get democracy. Governments don't 'give it away', they are too beholden to corporate interests. Yet in the late 1800's states fought for these rights. They didn't wait for government to do it, they did it themselves. <br />
<br />
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:48 pm 
